 |
 |
Fabulous advice...for a PhD, beware of stepping through the looking glass....you are likely to be conversing a little too often with Humpty Dumpty. S On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Raymond Pawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Michael > Your question on CR and RE (not for the first time) caused a little flurry > of RAMESES correspondence. Epistemology and ontology are indeed important > but I always offer a note of caution to PhD students. Your task, which you > will no doubt find somewhere in the regulations, is to produce an ‘original > contribution to knowledge’. I doubt that you will achieve this by chasing > epistemological hares or splitting ontological hairs. The best way to > approach the task is to produce a damn good piece of empirical research on > your very own topic. > Alas, there is an expectation, often fostered by over-zealous supervisors, > that the PhD thesis will contain a chapter (usually chapter 2) in which you > slay all philosophical opposition as a way of defending the empirical work > that comes later. The poor student then discovers that philosophy is a > country for grumpy old men and gruff old women. Debate follows debate and > becomes an end in itself. This is exactly the state of play with realism, > which by my reckoning has generated at least a dozen different variants. > I used to tell my poor students that their meta-physical reflections > should take the form of saying that your work 'calls upon' A’s notion of B, > C’s notion of D, etc. You should not expect that A, B, C, D, will provide > you a rule-book for conducting inquiry. The key task is to demonstrate how > you have applied the ideas, rather than using them as some kind of > infallible, protective shield. > Sermon over > Good luck > RAY > P.S. Speaking of grumpy old men, I’ve received a couple of e-mails asking > ‘what is this Porter/Pawson debate?’ Here it is: > http://evi.sagepub.com/content/21/1/65.full.pdf > http://evi.sagepub.com/content/22/1/49 > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nup.12100/pdf > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nup.12118/pdf > > > ________________________________________ > From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards < > [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Michael John Fanner < > [log in to unmask]> > Sent: 01 April 2016 15:25 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Critical Realism and RAMESES Publication Standards > > Hi all, > > I am a MPhil/PhD student and I am currently conducting a realist review of > the literature of my subject (child protection and gender). > > I am very passionate about this systematic approach to reviewing the > literature, but some of the concepts are constantly inter-changed within > articles and amongst them. I have noticed, within the literature, there are > often unclear distinctions made between concepts i.e. critical realist > methodology versus realist methodology, realist evaluation versus realist > synthesis/review. Does anyone know of a source that clearly observes these > differences? The RAMESES publication standard only mentions realism and no > other branch of it, i.e. subtle or critical. Is this intentional or > purposeful? > > Two questions: > > 1) In relation to my point about, is it possible to integrate critical > realist methodology (e.g. Edgley et al 2016. Critical Realist Review: > exploring the real, beyond the empirical. Journal of Further and Higher > Education. 40. 3. 316-330) with the RAMESES publication standards - or - > will this deviate too much from the publication standards? > > 2) I am unsure how I should discuss the differences between a realist > review/synthesis (following RAMESES publication standards) and critical > realism or whether there are just similar differences or no differences at > all? > > Sorry for my ignorance if this has been discussed before or I haven't > found the sources that explain this! > > Thanks in anticipation. > > Best wishes, > > Michael > > University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee, > registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office: > Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS. >